Which one does /sci/ think is going to win?

File: art.jpg (1MB, 2048x1536px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 2048x1536px

>>8767018
whats the downside to loop quantum gravity?

>>8767018
I thought loop quantum gravity was already half dead

>>8767018
I don't know, I'll get back to you when I've spent 12 years studying these theories in depth

>>8767018
I have knowledge and experience of neither one, but I'm gonna guess it's string theory.

>>8767018
String Theory sounds really interesting. What is this "qunatum" theory?

What is required to test these theories? If it's moar energy, then literally no practical use will ever come out of them.

File: EGFPA.jpg (196KB, 600x900px) Image search: [Google]

196KB, 600x900px

post-anabelian froeboid-geometric mechanics
coming soon in 2018, for now we only have the mathematical theory from the book "Éléments de la Géométrie Froéboïde post-Anabelienne"

I thought the LHC has already put the first nail in the coffin for supersymmetry. We haven't detected any new particles and if they existed we should be able to find them at the same energy level as we do their counterparts. So Loop Quantum Gravity for me.

>>8767110
Stop. It wasn't funny the first hundred times, it's certainly not funny now.

>>8767018
The last part isn't right. LQG is a quantization of general relativity, while String Theory is a unification of QFT and GR.

So LQG is based on both QM and GR, while ST is not (a priori) based on anything. ST is a completely different theory of physics which recovers QFT and GR in the appropriate limits.

>>8767018
>>8767023
>>8767025
LQG got falsified a few years back when it's big tests (travel time of light from distant stars) got falsified by the Fermi telescope.